Anyone who went Quad wished they had stayed with Duo?

Chris Beard · 30 Jul 2007 at 15:37

ergonomics said:
explain please

Me being pedantic. As the cores run in master-slave there is an overhead to splitting the workload etc on the master core so you don't quite get the same power as a single chip. This, however, is made insignificant by the offloading of background jobs in the OS.

lay-z-boy · 30 Jul 2007 at 15:40

communication between each core, cache management, program design inefficiencies and a few other things as well. This stops a quad core being 2x faster than the same speed dual core. Though it's theoretical power is twice as much.

V|per · 30 Jul 2007 at 15:44

Wiggins said:
I dont even think that anything above 2.4Ghz on a core2duo will make much difference on gaming.

Play supreme commander then...

@ exor: well said mate.. even though that is in the minority of games at the moment...

Who here only plays fps games? quite a few i guess...

Ok so i play the odd fps, namely quake, which, is ok for 2 cores, but the majority of time, i play RTS games, namely, the above mentionned game.. and this is pretty much the only reason why i am thinking of moving to quad.. i don't encode, i dont use cad, infact, i hardly multitask using any intesive apps (firefox/messenger/a game..) so dual core is plenty for me, but i am very VERY tempted to get the extra performance from the quad in supreme commander..

Being honest, these are the reasons for getting quad:

1) smoother supreme commander
2) better benchmarks (don't deny it guys...)
3) for the hell of getting one...

and i bet quite a few of you want/have a quad because of reasons 2 and 3.. at least i'm being honest about it.. so i guess this justifies some of the things easy is saying... even if he is going the wrong way about flaming the dual users.

Nobody needs a quad core, in the same way nobody needs a dual core.. (with the exception of using it for work etc) They are just there to make peoples life easier, if someone wants a quad, let them get a quad, if not, don't argue

krooton · 30 Jul 2007 at 16:17

In all honesty, for the same price, I'd rather have something that runs cooler and thereby quieter, especially if the real-life usage between the 2 is barely noticeable.

Not needing to shell out £30+ on a hardcore aircooler is also a bonus.

Locky · 30 Jul 2007 at 20:11

Quadcore is great for me over the duo cpus, reason i use it for a lot of coding etc, which is a lot faster on quad cpus IMO.

They do run hotter, use more power which is the only down side, but that doesnt really bother me as i use speedstep etc, in idle mode and low usage mode my cpu sits at 1.8ghz 1.0v, then when the power is needed it springs into life at 3.3ghz 1.35v, so i get best of both cool idle temps etc.

Biffa · 30 Jul 2007 at 22:16

I run my VMWare box on quad core, which is Vmware images. For me quad core is fantastic.

Plus its going to Fold as well

easyrider · 30 Jul 2007 at 22:36

Biffa said:
I run my VMWare box on quad core, which is Vmware images. For me quad core is fantastic.

Plus its going to Fold as well

I bet.

Thats an environment were Quad shines.

lumpeh · 30 Jul 2007 at 23:12

I certainly would like one for my vmware teams - i really noticed the difference when i got that X2 here for sure! Not until christmas for me though, i dont NEED one but i would LIKE one & even then any Penyrn/Phenom is gonna lightyears ahead of this processor.

arfur · 31 Jul 2007 at 00:15

lumpeh said:
I certainly would like one for my vmware teams - i really noticed the difference when i got that X2 here for sure! Not until christmas for me though, i dont NEED one but i would LIKE one & even then any Penyrn/Phenom is gonna lightyears ahead of this processor.

yep I agree I dont need one as I've got a E6600 but I definetly want one and soon, nearly got one at the weekend but got side tracked, will sell my e6600 on ebay probably. My crappy Asus board wont overclock anything so 4 cores at default should be better than 2 cores at default for gaming (my 8800 GTX isnt really pushed to max due to CPU limitation). Oh and realtime transcoding to xbox360 will be a huge benefit.

Spartacus · 31 Jul 2007 at 10:18

lay-z-boy said:
This stops a quad core being 2x faster than the same speed dual core.

In most cases yes. However I use Fritz (chess program) a lot, and if you compare a C2D at the same clock speed as a C2Q the Quad is a near as damit twice the speed.

I also encode video a lot and Quads fly compared to dual at this

This is why a Quad was a must for me :-)

Biffa · 31 Jul 2007 at 11:34

easyrider said:
I bet.

Thats an environment were Quad shines.

Well I bumped my mATX quad up to 3.0Ghz at stock voltage on the CPU but +1% on the memory.

Its running SMP Folding client at the moment, It seemed cooler this morning (could be the cold snap) at under 60degrees.

I've got coretemp monitoring it and if its stable all day then I'll try 3.1 and then 3.2 but I think either one will need a bump in voltages on the CPU to reach those.

Vdroop is pretty massive once it hits 100% cpu on my system. I'll have some screenies tonight and I've got loads of pics of my mATX build which I think I'll do in a separate thread.

arfur · 31 Jul 2007 at 12:41

OCUK stock a 95w version, is this any different in performance to the normal one? and is the normal one about 125w?

ergonomics · 31 Jul 2007 at 12:49

arfur said:
OCUK stock a 95w version, is this any different in performance to the normal one? and is the normal one about 125w?

the normal one is only 105 watts. the energy efficient is 10 watts less. makes no difference though when you overclock really, as you get higher clocks with the g0 version, so it just cancels out lol

Tom84 · 31 Jul 2007 at 13:32

Ok to sum up I bought my C2D about 4 months ago for whatever price they were back then (£120/140? ex VAT) should I go Quad given I can get the Q6600 for £140 or shall I just stick with what I've got?

It's sooooooo tempting as we've got one in stock and I could fit it tonight..... need answers people :confused:

Shimmy · 31 Jul 2007 at 13:51

Tom84 said:
Ok to sum up I bought my C2D about 4 months ago for whatever price they were back then (£120/140? ex VAT) should I go Quad given I can get the Q6600 for £140 or shall I just stick with what I've got?

It's sooooooo tempting as we've got one in stock and I could fit it tonight..... need answers people

Well if you want it, can afford it. Go for it I guess, seems like you're going to anyway

If you don't, think about whether it'll benefit you enough to warrant the upgrade, whether you'll notice the difference.

Tom84 · 31 Jul 2007 at 14:05

Shimmy said:
Well if you want it, can afford it. Go for it I guess, seems like you're going to anyway

If you don't, think about whether it'll benefit you enough to warrant the upgrade, whether you'll notice the difference.

That's kinda what I'm asking especially in the cases of BioShock and Crysis I want the best experience possible, thing is I've heard first hand that there is a difference in performance especially in games but then I've read that there's very little that's actually noticeable. Who to believe? :confused:

Tom84 · 31 Jul 2007 at 14:21

Ok Ignore the above I've managed to part exchange my C2D for the Quad, I'm effectively getting it for £24.00 - Bargain of the century of what

kirkster · 31 Jul 2007 at 21:21

QUAD

Well, I am upgrading from a 3.2 Prescott and I am going quad. seems daft not too. even if all cores are not going to be used now, they sure as hell will be in a few months. Why be hamstrung?

Steve

xsnv · 31 Jul 2007 at 21:27

ergonomics said:
the normal one is only 105 watts. the energy efficient is 10 watts less. makes no difference though when you overclock really, as you get higher clocks with the g0 version, so it just cancels out lol

Not necessarily trure. To quote Drunkenmaster from xtreme:

just to introduce a teeny tiny bit of reality in the situation.

on release, *** Q6600 has a WORST SITUATION of 105W's. ok in intels case its a percentage of the actual theoretical maximum based on their "average" usage numbers. but thats a constant method/percentage anyway.

but 6 months ago, the worst chips about wouldn't break the 105W, they have to be a little conservative aswell so even the worst chips are unlikely to actually hit 105W on the dot. either way, the process becomes older, they find new ways to tweak yields up a little, quality of chips increases, the wattage decreases a little further with every little trick they find. over several months they get the wattage down , after 4 months a few chips but not many actually run with 95W, but still the worst ones are at 101W's. another few months later and the worst chips are doing 95W now. so what do they do, its time to remarket and rebrand, its their low cost quad core, dell and other people want to hit the sub 100W mark to go in cheaper computers so they call the new stepping G0 and its rated at 95W now.

not all use 95W, some are still better. but its not as if, they walk in one day and stay, stop production on those B3's all using 105W's, we'll use this brand new G0 at 95W. they simply change the numbers they put on the cpu after they hit the point where no more chips were over 95W. in all likelyhood the last month or two of b3's have mostly been sub 95W aswell.

For example, this guy has a vid of 1.2625v on his retail G0:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&postcount=72

lay-z-boy · 31 Jul 2007 at 21:38

man, xtremesystems get the award for most unreliable server, down 70% of the time. :rolleyes: